Democracies based on the rule of law are fundamentally based on the legislative power. This article mainly highlights that the legislative power, responsible for submitting laws and enforcing them, has been corrupt for at least some time. It is obvious that the conflicts of interest of the various Western “presidents” make them traitors to the nation, it is obvious that “lobbying” by elected officials is corruption, it is obvious that arresting a democratically elected president on the pretext that he ran a TikTok campaign is unconstitutional, it is obvious that seizing Libyan or Russian funds is theft, it is obvious that what is happening in Gaza is genocide. But what is justice doing in occident? Nothing more than in 1945.

There has never been a democracy, among other things, because there has never been an impartial and independent legislative power. If only by the nature of its representatives, most of whom come from the most privileged, even the most elitist classes of society. But also by the nature of the constitution and elections in so-called democratic countries. Not to mention the endemic corruption that has resulted.

The social contract, on which so-called democracies are supposed to be based, is a balance of power between those who have power and those who agree to be governed. If those who govern can change the laws and have them applied without compensation, by controlling the only power of protest available to the majority, the vote, then the social contract has no foundation. The rule of law therefore does not exist. But worse, one can think that the more the number of laws increases, the more those who submit them or have the laws applied in their interest, as well as those capable of evading them, are favored. It is therefore a State where justice is at the service of inequality and corruption.

As it is obvious that justice is anything but impartial and independent, it is obvious that elections are rigged, from the selection of candidates, all from the minority, then by lobbying, by the voting system, by the media…

It is therefore obvious that Western democracies are not. They are plutocracies. Unless we consider that a billionaire like Trump, in a country with 800 billionaires and 330 millions citizens, is representative of the majority. Or that Macron, a probable descendant of Rothschild, whose career as a banker at Rothschild was at the service of the tiny minority of the wealthiest is also representative of the majority.

Another point is that this title of democracy, which claims the rule of law, is only claimed by the governed of said democracies and all their colonies who pay their taxes and respect the law for the most part. And by propagandists. Those who govern them do not pay their taxes and seem to act with impunity in the eyes of the law.

There is probably no system that cannot be corrupted to the benefit of a minority over time. We are intelligent predators. It is the human condition to be governed by the best of the species, and the best in the sense of nature are the fighter and the cheater. With equal competence, strength or intelligence, the most aggressive (or the least inhibited) and the most cheating men win. They therefore inexorably end up arriving at the top of any hierarchical organization. The most coherent solution, besides limiting competitivity (Competitiveness tries to pass itself off as something other than the strict application of the natural law of the fittest, which always favors the best of the species) or avoiding centralization and omnipotence of justice favoring the minority, is maybe to change the system of governance voluntarily and regularly. Before the inevitable collapse under the weight of inequality and corruption. The governance system would therefore be provisional. And the social contract signed between the rulers and the ruled would be subject to debate again after its expiration. Ezra Pound seems to me to have been quite consistent on these issues.

I am not interested in the Brigitte Macron affair, nor in Candace Owen. But why are you talking about it? You admit to not knowing the subject well. You use few and not very credible arguments and sources.

As you boldly quote Wikipedia to enlighten us on the truth, below is the introduction to the article “The Unz Review” from Wikipedia

“The Unz Review is an American website and blog founded and edited by Ron Unz, an American far-right activist and Holocaust denier. It is known for its publication of far-right, conspiracy theory, white nationalist, and antisemitic writings….Ron Unz, far-right activist and conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier, launched The Unz Review in November 2013.”

Below is a passage from your article

“These sorts of very simple difficulties seem to have totally escaped Owens and all her deeply conspiratorial allies. But although forcing myself to sit through the more than six hours of Owens’ painfully stupid narrative on Brigitte Macron was hardly a pleasant experience, I am glad that I did so. After a couple of hours, I discovered that Owens had raised her bizarre theory to even greater heights of absurdity by strongly suggesting that Brigitte …

I find that the 2 articles are similar. They are reductive and simplistic, deliberately attempt to influence the reader’s opinion through the use of language elements and do not constitute a reliable source of information.

The best movie is the one you haven’t seen. Seeing a list of so-called “best films” on an anti-establishment website, which is also critical of Jewish influence, is quite revealing of the failure of critical thinking in our time. Henry Ford summed up cinema rather well 100 years ago: a factory for formatting perverted thought. The same as “literature,” but more sophisticated. The Godfather (1972), which is among the top films in many audience and professional polls worldwide, is undoubtedly one of the most successful operations. Fifty years later, Trump is the most powerful man in the West. A democratically elected godfather.

“People are perverts…that’s pretty much been the basis of my career anyway.”― David Fincher.

As always with people like Fincher, it’s an inversion and a projection. Cinema is perverse, and if you watch it, you will be perverted.